Dept. of Human Services v. T. H.

── Dept. of Human Services v. T. H. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General 634 May 13, 2026 No. 421 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of O. S. S., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. H., fka T. R. O., Appellant. Lake County Circuit Court 23JU00944; A188130 (Control) In the Matter of M. L. S., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. H., fka T. R. O., Appellant. Lake County Circuit Court 23JU00946; A188131 In the Matter of S. R. S., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. H., fka T. R. O., Appellant. Lake County Circuit Court 23JU00950; A188132 Nonprecedential Memo Op: 349 Or App 634 (2026) 635 In the Matter of N. F. S., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. H., fka T. R. O., Appellant. Lake County Circuit Court 23JU00952; A188133 David M. Vandenberg, Judge. Submitted April 22, 2026. Aron Perez-Selsky filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Hellman, Judge.* PER CURIAM Affirmed. ______________ * Lagesen, C. J., vice Joyce, J. 636 Dept. of Human Services v. T. H. PER CURIAM Mother appeals juvenile court judgments denying her motions to terminate the wardships over her four chil- dren and to dismiss the dependency cases for lack of jurisdic- tion. She assigns error to the juvenile court’s determination that the basis for dependency jurisdiction—that mother’s mental health issues interfered with her ability to safely parent her children to a degree sufficient to warrant depen- dency jurisdiction—continued to exist at the time of the hearing on the motion. Mother contends that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support that determination. Our review requires us to “assess whether the record was legally sufficient to permit the outcome that was reached.” Dept. of Human Services v. N. L. B., 306 Or App 93, 96, 473 P3d 610, rev den, 367 Or 220 (2020). In conducting that review, “we view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by per- missible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s ruling.” Id. Where, as here, a permanency plan is reunification, the issues on a motion to dismiss dependency jurisdiction are (1) “whether the original bases for jurisdiction con- tinue to pose a current threat of serious loss or injury”; and (2) if so, whether that threat is likely to be realized absent the exercise of dependency jurisdiction. Id. at 99; Dept. of Human Services v. T .L., 279 Or App 673, 684-87, 473 P3d 610 (2016) (setting forth analytic framework for motions to dismiss dependency jurisdiction). Although the record demonstrates that mother had taken steps to address the risk posed by her mental health issues—both through coun- seling and seeking the help of family members—it is none- theless sufficient to support the determination that mother’s mental health issues present